No, there is no pocket in the floor and he didn't cut anything to make it fit. He said he mounted it in the exact same position as it was in the first convertible he had based on the template he made.

I also bought one from Philips and have it stored till I'm ready to swap the new one in. Owen said it was an easy job and I should be able to do it by myself.

Packard did not always follow this practice but did it enough to use as a judge. The casting number is one digit less than the part number. The part number for the 56 head after machining is 6480407, the part number on the casting is 6480406. I have seen other examples of Packard using this procedure.
The forged crank made of unobtanium and found only in a dark pit in South Bend is 440989. I have strong feelings that the forged crank exists because Studebaker ordered replacement cranks from their supplier who made nothing but forged cranks. Here is mine with the part number stamped on it.
https://packardinfo.com/xoops/html/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=205&viewmode=flat&order=ASC&type=&mode=0&start=140

Yes, Phillips is the guy who has made several small runs (25 units at a time) of the 55/56 Caribbean windshield with tint band. They go for $1000 - $1200 plus crating and shipping. I have one bought some years back, quality and fit was excellent.

got ahold of vic at phillips glass,easy to work with and now have new windshield in the 51. $450.00 plus shipping.thought that was pretty good.

Much as I'd like to be able to, I can't add any information other than what's in the SC, except that I'm relatively certain they did not change compression ratio of the 320 engine when going from machined to cast chambers; otherwise there would certainly have been a TSB or SC about it.

As to the forged crankshaft, friend Randy Berger found one in the 374 engine he bought for parts. He ended up using it in his rebuilt engine. It did have some numbers on it, though I didn't make note of them, though the differences in the two crankshafts are obvious just by visual inspection. I also asked Randy about the last digit on the 374 head casting number; he's pretty confident it's a 6, not an 8.

There are several notations about crankshafts in the SCs as well. Those relating to the 55th series notes that cranks balanced for the 4 inch bore have a "4" stamped onto a milled surface on the end of the front counterweight, the other has a "3". Then there is a subsequent notation relating to the first that says the crankshaft with the #4 stamped may be used for either the 4 or 3-13/16 engine, but those with the #3 can only be used on the 3-13/16 engine. I've never seen similar notations concerning the 56th series crankshafts.

OK, I've got a half-dozen 374"s so I should be able to find one on which the head casting number is readable. I'll be going up to my shop where they are stored later this week.

Let's start over on the 320" heads:

1. Were the machined 320" heads a different casting number than that of the 352"? It would have been relatively easy operation to make the machined combustion chamber 8cc larger. The as-cast chamber is what it is.
2. Has anyone seen any info to indicate when the 320" change was made to as-cast, did the valve size and/or compression ratio also change? That it was necessary to change the carburetor and distributor may have been necessary due to a higher compression ratio. Why else change those components?
3. Does anyone have a set of as-cast 320" heads. It would be interesting to check the CCs to determine if they are different from the machined heads.

As to why the change from machined to as-cast combustion chambers:
1. I doubt it was for cost savings. Machining was a simple one-pass with an end mill. It was more costly to change the pattern, pour the test castings and make the checks and remove the machining operation from the line than to leave it in place.
2. My opinion is it was the easiest way to raise the compression ratio. They just made the chamber smaller by changing the pattern to add more iron.
3. The smaller chamber also slightly shrouded the valves. This is probably why the change to 2" intakes.

Now that we're getting some traction on head casting and part numbers, how about crankshafts? In theory, with three different bore diameters and piston weights, there should be three different part numbers. Then there's the Unobtanium forged crankshafts, so six part numbers. I've never seen a casting number, forging number or part number visible on any Packard V8 crankshaft. How do we know what we should have, much less what we've got?

thnx, jack vines

So they date and vol. info was DELIBERATLY ommitted

Yes, that's what I said.

Thank you all for your compliments. I'm glad that my work has been so well-received and is of use to so many. I hope visitors look a little further to see that there is also a chart for 55th Series.

Be advised that I have received copies of factory documentation from Dwight Heinmuller that will require me to submit a revison to the 56th Series charts for a couple of points on Executive (5670) equipment. Though I don't yet have a copy of the Trade Letter (#56-1001, Dealer 1, Supplement 2) regarding the change in underseat heater availability, I'll clarify the footnote.

Before I can do that, however, I have to finish cleaing up the wreck that remnants of Hurricane Ike made of my folks' yard last Sunday. While we lost power for only a few hours, many homes in the region are still without it.

More on build codes later...

The use of volume and issue numbering for this newsletter dates all the way back to 1927, when it was launched as the Packard Service Letter. While the name changed in the mid-40s to the Packard Service Counselor, volume numbering remained contiguous through 1956.

Not only was did the publishers eliminate dates and volume/issue numbers in this new edition of the reprint, but they renumbered the pages and reindexed the whole thing. That makes for a real PIA when two people are trying to communicate and one has original issues but the other has the new reprint. Yet, previous (comb-bound) editions of the reprints were as originally published by Packard. Stuff like that really makes you wonder what they were thinking.

No matter - a solution is on the way.

A couple of years ago, I wrote a comprehensive index to all the Service Counselor articles and Service Technical Bulletins, PLUS Studebaker Service Bulletin articles for the V8s, and I am now working with BigKev to take that to a whole new level and extend its functionality to earlier Series.

Please stand by by for the premiere of this new feature (hopefully within a week or so). I think you'll find help for a lot of questions that have been asked recently - not just in this thread.